33 C(ii) Costs and expenses 115. As previously noted by the Court, costs and expenses constitute part of the concept of reparation under Article 63(1) of the American Convention.91 116. The Commission requested that the Court “consider the submissions of the victim’s representatives in determining what order for costs and expenses may be appropriate.” 117. The representatives did not seek any legal fees in the present case. They argued, however, that “the expenses incurred in respect of the hearing before the Inter-American Court should be recovered from the State insofar as these are not covered by the InterAmerican Commission. These should include travel and per diem allowance, accommodation for the legal representatives [that attended] the hearing[,] and an additional amount representing […] courier, photocopying[,] and travel expenses incurred in visiting prisons[,] as well as affidavit fees.” 118. The State requested that the Court award no costs or expenses, emphasizing that the representatives have waived all legal fees. In the alternative, the State asked the Court to “award a nominal sum for expenses directly incurred by counsel for the [p]etitioner” in relation to the oral hearing held in the present case before the Tribunal. Furthermore, “if costs and expense in relation to [the] hearing are to be assessed, the State submit[ted] that under the Inter-American [S]ystem of human rights such costs must be reasonable.” 119. As the Court has indicated on previous occasions, costs and expenses are included in the concept of reparations embodied in Article 63(1) of the American Convention, since the actions taken by the victims, their next of kin, or their representatives to obtain justice at both the national and the international levels entail expenditures that must be compensated when a State’s international responsibility has been declared in a judgment against it. The Court must prudently assess the reimbursement of costs and expenses arising both before domestic authorities and before the Inter-American System, taking into account the circumstances of the specific case and the nature of the international jurisdiction for the protection of human rights. This assessment can be made based on the principle of equity and taking into account the expenses indicated by the parties, provided their quantum is reasonable.92 120. The Court notes that the representatives have submitted receipts that purportedly support said request for a total amount of US$ 12,799.06 (twelve thousand seven hundred and ninety nine United States dollars and six cents). The State and the Commission indicated they had no observations on this matter (supra para. 12). 121. This Court has analyzed the documentation submitted by the representatives and has found sufficient evidence to support a claim of US$ 9,306.21 (nine thousand three hundred and six United States dollars and twenty one cents). Although the representatives did not submit receipts pertaining to photocopying and courier expenses related to the litigation of the present case, the Court deems that such expenses, in a reasonable amount, 91 Cf. Case of Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 27, 1998. Series C No. 39, para. 79; Case of Escher et al., supra note 6, para. 255, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra note 6, para. 146. 92 Cf. Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina, supra note 91, para. 82; Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”), supra note 6, para. 146, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 243.